my views on the local news in Minnesota

Freedom

June 20, 2008

"I woke up to them pounding on the wall with flashlights
in my face," Troy said. "(They said) 'Lakeville police!' and that's
when I got up and said, 'What's going on?'"

This is reminiscent of Nazi Germany, when they came to get you in
the middle of the night. Except in this case the police say they're
just doing this as a public service.

Lakeville police chief Tom Vonhof defended the 3:00 a.m. intrusion:

"They had to check from a health and welfare point check
and make sure those kids were okay," said Lakeville Police Chief Tom
Vonhof.

It's always about the kids, isn't it? Nothing in the coverage I've
read describes any suspicious activity whatsoever. The ONLY reason
given for the police entering this family's home in the middle of the
night and shining their flashlights in the face of the homeowner was
that the home was unsecured.

Are Lakeville residents to expect similar intrusions if they forget
to lock the door? If the bad guys don't take advantage of the open
garage door, the cops will give you an unpleasant awakening in the
middle of the night.

This is the kind of story that makes people wonder, yet again, why criminals have more rights than the rest of us.

I wonder what might have happened if this homeowner had a firearm near his bed.

June 09, 2008

I love this story. What do you do when people tell you that the way you've lived your life for 79 years now constitutes a nuisance?

It didn't used to be a nuisance. It used to be the way everybody did it.

Suddenly, you're not only behind the times, antiquated and weird,
you're a lawbreaker for doing the same thing that used to be done by
everyone.

This man is not impressed by indoor plumbing. He sees benefits in doing things the old way. If it ain't broke, you know . . .

He's a good example of why we came up with the word "grandfathering"
in the zoning context. And being a great-grandfather, he should have
been entitled to a double dose of grandfathering.

But public health officials in his county don't share my opinion, so they ordered this old farmer to get rid of his outhouse.

I'm guessing they didn't care whether it had a smaller carbon footprint than the modern version.

I'm glad there was a non-profit group to come to his aid and build him a new one that complied with the modern ordinances.

And I'm glad that he stood his ground, too.

When I ask myself why I feel that way, it's hard to articulate the
basis for my thoughts. I admire those who think for themselves and
refuse to bow to the latest tidbit of conventional so-called wisdom. So
often we see people who give over the task of thinking to others,
accepting whatever the latest bromide is for this or for that.

This man grew up before we started hearing as part of the 10 o'clock
news that we should stick a thermometer in our hamburgers before we
take them off the grill. He no doubt grew up eating bacon and eggs, and
put butter on his toast.

I prize the human spirits that have learned to make their way
through their lives on their own wits, sinking or swimming, trusting
only in those who have earned their trust, and loathe to give away to
others the power to control their lives.

My father was like that. He was a self-made man. He gave up
outhouses in his youth, but never gave up the right to think for
himself.

May 25, 2008

Imagine that a government-owned TV station airs a sensational news story that a media critic challenges as having been staged.

Imagine that, instead of making public proof that the story was not staged, the government TV station sues the media critic for defamation.

In a country where the defendant has the burden of proving that the allegedly defamatory statement was false.

Imagine further that the TV station refuses to release evidence that would shed light on whether the news story was false -- the raw film footage -- and the court hearing the defamation case denies the request for an order that the TV station release the footage.

This story is difficult for us to comprehend because it is so contrary to the freedoms that we take for granted. And France isn't the only country whose laws punish speech. They do it in Britain, Germany, Belgium and other countries.

One more reason to feel grateful that we're fortunate enough to be citizens of these United States of America.

One more reason to be vigilant in making sure that we don't allow our freedoms to be curtailed in response to the creeping intolerance adopted elsewhere.

How many writers will refrain from searching for the truth out of fear of similar denunciation? Even if it's only one writer that shies away from honest reporting, the public has been harmed. We give the press broad license to report news and opinions because we believe that uninhibited debate is necessary to maintain a stable country.

The US Supreme Court recognized in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan that we have a "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials" and quoted Whitney v. California to explain that:

Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.

Oh, yes. The French media critic. More than a year and a half after the French court found in favor of the TV station, ordering defendant Philippe Karsenty to pay a fine and court costs, a French appeals court has reversed the lower court's judgment. The TV station may appeal.